Displaying 3 results from an estimated 3 matches for "7bybdg".
2018 Jan 10
0
LLVM EH tables much larger than GCC's
...sing ULEB128 already.)
>
> I tried to implement this in LLVM, but couldn't find a good way to
> represent the calls that must be omitted from the call site table.
>
> Is there a reason LLVM doesn't handle this like GCC?
>
> Examples:
> - C++03: https://godbolt.org/g/7BYbdG
> - C++11: https://godbolt.org/g/bnHLvH
>
See also my comment and Reid's reply here:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-February/109995.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachment...
2018 Jan 06
2
LLVM EH tables much larger than GCC's
...ll, assuming the call
site table is using ULEB128 already.)
I tried to implement this in LLVM, but couldn't find a good way to
represent the calls that must be omitted from the call site table.
Is there a reason LLVM doesn't handle this like GCC?
Examples:
- C++03: https://godbolt.org/g/7BYbdG
- C++11: https://godbolt.org/g/bnHLvH
Thanks,
-Ryan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180105/932ff02a/attachment.html>
2018 Jan 11
1
LLVM EH tables much larger than GCC's
...>> I tried to implement this in LLVM, but couldn't find a good way to
>> represent the calls that must be omitted from the call site table.
>>
>> Is there a reason LLVM doesn't handle this like GCC?
>>
>> Examples:
>> - C++03: https://godbolt.org/g/7BYbdG
>> - C++11: https://godbolt.org/g/bnHLvH
>>
>
> See also my comment and Reid's reply here:
> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-February/109995.html
>
Reid Kleckner wrote:
> ... I would say that we should just
> pattern match away our calls to std::te...